lets just start with a ankle and wrist taping seminar :DQuote:
Originally Posted by souljahbill
and best knee pad comparisons :D
Printable View
lets just start with a ankle and wrist taping seminar :DQuote:
Originally Posted by souljahbill
and best knee pad comparisons :D
I laugh every time I hear someone say this. Wickard v. Filburn killed any meaningful distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce. Even US v. Lopez dealt with something that was completely unrelated to commerce of any kind in a traditional sense....Quote:
Originally Posted by CLW
You are correct that "interstate commerce" has almost been defined by our Supreme Court to the point that there is virtually zero limit on our Federal Government. Basically every act just has to say "interstate commerce" is affected in it and then can be completely ignored.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Orygun
Obama et al. are arguing that just being alive amounts to affecting interstate commerce so they can force you to purchase health insurance. If Obamacare is upheld there is NO limit on the Federal Government's power and they can force us to do whatever they want (so long as they deem it to affect interstate commerce). The Americans Must Buy Brocoli Act anyone?
IMHO, Wickard was/is a HORRIBLE decision and I hope the SCOTUS can slowly but surely but some teeth back into the interstate commerce requirement of the Constitution. Otherwise, what is the point of the 50 (or is it 57) states?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Orygun
Yeah, what you guys said.Quote:
Originally Posted by CLW
Likewise, minus the "H." If Art 1 Sec 8 was meant to be that encompassing there would be no need for the plenary vs. enumerated powers structure, the 9th or 10 Amendment, etc. Wickard does an excellent job of illustrating that the Supreme Court is not "Final because we are right, but right because we are final." (William Wayne I think but that's off the top of my head so don't flame lol)Quote:
Originally Posted by CLW
False.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBHuskers
http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slu...obertson012611
Quote:
Oscar Robertson is asked to affix his autograph to various items every day and he recently discovered a new one being pushed in front of him by fans – trading cards featuring him as a player at the University of Cincinnati. Some come with a swath of his “game jersey” attached. Others have him in his freshman number, 22.
This was not a product he recalled approving for his likeness to be used. He tried calling the trading card companies (Upper Deck, Donruss) for an explanation yet couldn’t get a response.
The answer was the NCAA had signed licensing deals with the companies without Robertson’s direct consent. The association maintains it has the right to control a player’s likeness in perpetuity.
In the case of the 72-year-old Big O, that means 51 years and counting. He left UC in 1960.
Okay failed athletes, and athletes from long ago that have run out of money.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffHCross
Or never really made any.:lb:Quote:
Originally Posted by JBHuskers
ex amateur players suing a commercial company while the NCAA still cashes in on them is odd as well
this should be his avatarQuote:
Originally Posted by JBHuskers
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...YT906KyNph&t=1
good use of the new emoticon :lb:Quote:
Originally Posted by steelerfan
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by psuexv
Nice! :D That makes me want to watch Vinny right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by psuexv
Article from ESPN which is the best article I have seen to date explaining the situation as I understand it.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6487782Quote:
SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge has dismissed video game maker Electronic Arts Inc. from a high-profile antitrust lawsuit challenging the NCAA's long-standing prohibition against paying student athletes for their performance.
But U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken on Monday refused to drop the bulk of the case, which accuses the NCAA and its marketing company of operating an illegal sports marketing monopoly. Led by former UCLA basketball standout Ed O'Bannon, former athletes allege they are forced to forever sign away their commercial rights to play collegiate sports.
The judge refused to dismiss the NCAA and Collegiate Licensing Co. from the lawsuit that seeks to become a class action representing thousands of former football and basketball players who say the NCAA illegally controls their images forever without compensation.
The NCAA responds that players are free to make commercial deals after they leave college. NCAA policy prohibits players from receiving compensation while they are playing.
The judge said there is enough evidence to continue the litigation. But she said Monday that there was no evidence that Redwood City-based EA conspired with the NCAA to deny the players compensation and she dismissed the company from the lawsuit.
The O'Bannon case and another led by former Nebraska quarterback Sam Keller are being closely watched because of their potential to dramatically reshape the commercial relationship between the NCAA and its athletes. Keller's lawsuit also alleges that the NCAA is unfairly depriving athletes of their share of revenues generated by their performances. But Keller's lawsuit makes different legal arguments, claiming the NCAA is violating the players' commercial rights when it refuses to cut them in on marketing deals using their images. The Keller lawsuit also names EA as a defendant.
Last year, Wilken refused to dismiss EA from the Keller case. EA has appealed that decision.
Which may be why he has an issue with the idea that the NCAA is making money off of him to this day, yes? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by steelerfan
Another article with some interesting tidbits:
http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebaske...-obannons-ncaaQuote:
Former UCLA star Ed O'Bannon's lawsuit against the NCAA will proceed after a federal judge dismissed claims against Electronic Arts Inc. but refused to do so with the NCAA and Collegiate Licensing Co.
O'Bannon is leading a group of former college athletes in an antitrust lawsuit filed in 2009 over the use of their images and likenesses. There are signs that it could be getting increasingly uncomfortable for the NCAA. According to USA Today, NCAA president Mark Emmert faces a deposition date.
Jon T. King, a lawyer for the players, also has filed notice to take the deposition of NCAA President Mark Emmert on June 22, though that could change slightly depending on Emmert's schedule, King said.
"As the plaintiffs well know, Dr. Emmert was not at the NCAA during the time period at issue in this lawsuit," the NCAA's Bob Williams said in an e-mail to USA TODAY. "The plaintiff's notice of his deposition at this point is inappropriate, and we will take action accordingly."
Emmert became NCAA president in October 2010.
The case is scheduled for trial in March 2013, but fact discovery is scheduled for completion by late January 2012, King said.
The lawsuit has gotten notoriety for its potential game-changing effects on how the NCAA conducts business. The organization currently bars players from being paid during their college careers.
According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, a recent poll found that nearly half of the 300 football and men's basketball players surveyed said they didn't understand they had signed away their rights to commercial use of their images without receiving a share of the proceeds.
The athletes' confusion didn’t stop with the form. Fifty-four percent of the survey's respondents thought that by appearing in video games bearing their images or likenesses, they were endorsing those commercial goods, said Anastasios Kaburakis, an assistant professor of management and sports business at Saint Louis University and the study's lead author.
"They weren’t getting any money, but they still felt they were actually endorsing the product," he said in a phone interview.
Despite the confusion, 97 percent of respondents liked being featured in video games, and two-thirds believed that the way the NCAA and video-game companies used their image or likeness was fair. But only 33 percent believed that their athletic scholarship was sufficient payment for the use of their image or likeness.
Basically our D1 college athletes are MORONS but I think most of us already knew that.
To be fair, I think the majority of America is just as confused about collegiate likenesses as our athletes are. Obviously the athletes have more stake in knowing, and therefore they should, but it's still worth noting that it's confusing as hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by CLW
It's also worth acknowledging that we're going to have to listen to this crap for two more years before it even goes to trial. Sigh.
EA defeats ex-Rutgers QB over video game image
Definitely doesn't sound like it's over yet... the Keller case is still out there.
And, let's be honest, the decision to allow the Keller case to move on could be used as an argument to appeal this decision. If it hasn't been already (not clear from the article).Quote:
Originally Posted by gschwendt
I'm not really sure what you're talking about here, however, if another suit affects your suit that doesn't give you the right to appeal.